net presence
Active member
Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At
First, I'm as much a Trump hater as anyone on this site. However, I think the tone you guys (and Deutsche) are addressing "eric" with is a little strong. He hasn't attacked anyone here, at least not today. I have no problem with any of us expressing anger or frustration in a direct or forceful manner -- like the way NDHockey did earlier -- but, unless someone truly starts it first, we shouldn't be "attacking" anyone who's discussing or debating us in a respectful manner.
Hovey, in regards to your comment about opening up vs protecting human life being an "either/or argument"; unfortunately, if you strip it down to the nitty gritty, that's exactly what the argument is. Now, before any of you get too excited, let me clarify. Until we either get a vaccine or a therapeutic that literally keeps 99.9999% of anyone who gets it from going to ICU, the ONLY way to truly limit/minimize the spread is to (other than front line workers) completely shut everything down and limit people from leaving their homes to either grocery shopping, medications, or genuine health emergencies. However, we've obviously seen what that does to our economy. So Hovey, although it may make you uncomfortable to have to think about it as an "either/or" argument, that's exactly what it is.
The reality is, our government could choose a different way to address the economic challenges that come with keeping things shut down for an extensive period of time that would genuinely limit the damage to both individuals and small businesses. But, those currently in power -- especially in the Republican party -- are far more concerned with maintaining that power for the 1%. It's really that simple. So sure, based on the path they have chosen, the only way to "save" the economy is to try and open it up. But that's the point, they CHOSE to take this path. So, it's only fair then to put them and (apparently you as well) on the spot by asking one simple question; what is the specific number of preventable/unnecessary deaths that would prevent you/them from opening up the economy? 50K, 500K, a million? I've asked this question to over 30 plus people in the last four weeks and, funny, literally not a single one has been willing to provide an answer. It sucks to have to assign a literal life or death value to earning a dollar but, that's the current reality we're living in. So Hovey, what do you say? Are you willing to provide a number?
First, I'm as much a Trump hater as anyone on this site. However, I think the tone you guys (and Deutsche) are addressing "eric" with is a little strong. He hasn't attacked anyone here, at least not today. I have no problem with any of us expressing anger or frustration in a direct or forceful manner -- like the way NDHockey did earlier -- but, unless someone truly starts it first, we shouldn't be "attacking" anyone who's discussing or debating us in a respectful manner.
Hovey, in regards to your comment about opening up vs protecting human life being an "either/or argument"; unfortunately, if you strip it down to the nitty gritty, that's exactly what the argument is. Now, before any of you get too excited, let me clarify. Until we either get a vaccine or a therapeutic that literally keeps 99.9999% of anyone who gets it from going to ICU, the ONLY way to truly limit/minimize the spread is to (other than front line workers) completely shut everything down and limit people from leaving their homes to either grocery shopping, medications, or genuine health emergencies. However, we've obviously seen what that does to our economy. So Hovey, although it may make you uncomfortable to have to think about it as an "either/or" argument, that's exactly what it is.
The reality is, our government could choose a different way to address the economic challenges that come with keeping things shut down for an extensive period of time that would genuinely limit the damage to both individuals and small businesses. But, those currently in power -- especially in the Republican party -- are far more concerned with maintaining that power for the 1%. It's really that simple. So sure, based on the path they have chosen, the only way to "save" the economy is to try and open it up. But that's the point, they CHOSE to take this path. So, it's only fair then to put them and (apparently you as well) on the spot by asking one simple question; what is the specific number of preventable/unnecessary deaths that would prevent you/them from opening up the economy? 50K, 500K, a million? I've asked this question to over 30 plus people in the last four weeks and, funny, literally not a single one has been willing to provide an answer. It sucks to have to assign a literal life or death value to earning a dollar but, that's the current reality we're living in. So Hovey, what do you say? Are you willing to provide a number?
)
To clarify, I knew you weren't attacking eric. I actually felt others were being a little too terse in their tone in responding to him. The last 2 paragraphs of my post were actually in response to, what I assume was your sarcasm toward the group when you responded to Eric in describing what he could expect if he entered into the debate about "opening up" vs the "health" of individuals in our country.